re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 2:02 pm to JoshuaChamberlain)

Obama got punched in the nose last night. He's gotta come back wailing. We're gonna hear about the 47% and tax returns constantly. If you think obamas been playing class warfare, just wait. It's about to be full on character assassination. Rest of the campaign from Obama will be 30% policies, 70% destroying mitt Romney the man.

re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 2:08 pm to Catman88)

It doesn't matter what the American people think. It matters what voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. think.

Romney looked sharp. You can tell he's very familiar with the nuts and bolts of his policies. His background in high level business is pretty apparent. I thought Obama was shook and stuck to speaking in generalities. Obama won in 2008 on personal charisma and didn't have to discuss his record. That's completely changed now. I don't know if you can be inspiring while also being a policy wonk.

re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 2:27 pm to UGATiger26)

quote:Well maybe it helps to mention that the best idea Obama's administration had was to inject 800 billion into a black hole to repair a few roads and keep unemployment below 8%.

Let's try someone who has other ideas for the economy rather than Keynesian theory.

I just get the feeling that Romney's plan for the economy is to gut the government, putting a few hundred thousand more people out of jobs, and then lower taxes on corporations so that they will invest and create more jobs even though there is no increased demand for goods and services because nobody can afford them. I'm not eyeballs deep into politics or economics, so can someone explain where I'm wrong?

re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 2:49 pm to CptBengal)

quote:isnt creating private sector jobs a good thing? Those people then pay taxes to the government.

Of course it's a good thing, but you missed the part where I facetiously said investments will be made and jobs will be created even though there is no increased demand. Why will jobs be created if there is nobody to buy the increased output? It seems to me to be a chicken/egg problem, but you seem to have it all figured out. Can you help me understand?

re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 3:22 pm to Korkstand)

quote:Of course it's a good thing, but you missed the part where I facetiously said investments will be made and jobs will be created even though there is no increased demand. Why will jobs be created if there is nobody to buy the increased output? It seems to me to be a chicken/egg problem, but you seem to have it all figured out. Can you help me understand?

Here is the deal behind what CptBengal is saying. Right now, businesses (especially small businesses) are stifled because they are unsure about taxes, regulations, etc. I know a few small business owners myself. They are, quite literally, scared about what the Obama administration might do next.

Regulations cost businesses money to comply with them. I'm not saying all regulations are bad, but that is just a fact. The Obama administration has had no qualms about making additional regulations with seemingly little forethought or reasoning behind them besides making themselves feel better about saving the environment or whatever.

This is what free trade guys like Milton Friedman mean when they say they want government to get the hell out of the way and let the free market go to work. Let the people decide what is best for themselves and others based upon the laws of freedom, demand, and choice. Yes, the government needs to watch over the economy and create an even playing ground. But it does not need to create arbitrary and expensive laws and regulations.

re: Obama just now: "Not the Real Mitt Romney last night" (Posted on 10/4/12 at 3:22 pm to CptBengal)

quote:increasing jobs, gives people money, which allows them to spend.

Why is this concept hard for you to understand?

That concept is simple, and I have no problem understanding it. What I am trying to understand is why would a company, when given extra cash, just start hiring employees and expanding their business? If there were customers already out there willing and able to buy goods and services, wouldn't these companies already be hiring and expanding regardless of tax rates?

quote:Ok, Business A wants to expand by increasing their R&D, or becoming more efficient. So they want to hire more workers.

Typically, more efficient = fewer employees.

quote:Those workers then get paychecks which they then use to buy things.

People arent spending money now because they HAVE NONE.

I feel like you're assuming every business will have a pact with one another to go ahead and divvy up their newfound cash amongst the new hires with the assumption that they will all benefit and the new hires will pay for themselves. I need you to explain to me the incentive for Business A to take the initiative and hire people they currently have no use for, so that those employees will have money to spend and spread around to Businesses B through Z. What happens when most of those companies take the extra cash and send it overseas where it will likely make more money?

quote:You think businesses dont want to make money?

Of course they do, which is why I don't think they will hire unnecessary employees without having customers first.